Criteria and descriptors use the language of the BC Science 11 curricular competencies. All four labs use everyday, low-cost materials — a ball & ramp, a protractor or phone, a foam cup, a staircase — so students are assessed on the science and thinking, never on access to specialized equipment. Circle the level that best fits each criterion, record the mark, and total.
| Criterion (25 each) | Emerging1 – 12 | Developing13 – 18 | Proficient19 – 22 | Extending23 – 25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Planning & ConductingDid the student plan and conduct the investigation, using appropriate equipment to systematically and accurately collect and record reliable data? | Investigation incomplete or unsafe; data not collected systematically; little attention to accuracy, precision, units, or significant figures. | Plans and conducts the investigation with support; collects data with some gaps; basic attention to accuracy and precision (units, significant figures). | Independently plans and conducts the investigation; uses appropriate equipment and SI units to systematically and accurately collect and record reliable data; applies accuracy and precision (significant figures, uncertainty). | Conducts a precise, well-controlled investigation; repeated trials and controlled variables; data collected and recorded with consistent accuracy and precision. |
| 2. Processing & Analyzing Data & InformationDid the student seek and analyze patterns and relationships, perform calculations, and draw conclusions consistent with the evidence? | Little or no analysis; calculations largely incorrect or missing; conclusions not consistent with evidence. | Seeks some patterns or relationships between variables; performs calculations with minor errors in substitution, units, or significant figures; partial interpretation. | Seeks and analyzes patterns, trends, and relationships between variables; performs correct calculations and constructs/interprets tables or graphs; draws conclusions consistent with the evidence. | Thorough, precise analysis; identifies relationships and cause-and-effect; conclusions are well supported and connected to the underlying physics. |
| 3. EvaluatingDid the student evaluate the method, identify sources of error or uncertainty, and describe ways to improve? | No meaningful evaluation; sources of error or uncertainty absent or irrelevant; percent error missing or incorrect. | Identifies a source of error or uncertainty; limited comment on reliability; percent error attempted. | Evaluates the method and identifies realistic sources of error or uncertainty and their effect; calculates and interprets percent error; describes a specific way to improve the investigation. | Critically evaluates methods and limitations; explains how error or uncertainty affects the result; proposes well-reasoned improvements and alternatives. |
| 4. CommunicatingDid the student communicate scientific ideas clearly, using appropriate scientific language, conventions, and representations? | Disorganized or incomplete; little scientific language; conclusion missing or unclear. | Generally organized; some scientific vocabulary and conventions; conclusion present but limited. | Communicates clearly and is well organized; uses appropriate scientific language, conventions, units, and representations; conclusion answers the purpose with evidence. | Polished, precise communication; consistent conventions and representations; insightful conclusion fully supported by the data. |